Charles Freeman withdrew his nomination to be the Chairman of the National Intelligence Council yesterday in the wake of controversy over his views, statements, monetary ties to the foreign dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and China, lack of respect for human rights (Chinese dissidents expressed their outrage over his views towards the Tiananmen massacre-the Chinese weren't tough enough in his view), his involvement in a Chinese oil company on the verge of breaking sanctions on Iran, analytical abilities, and his willingness to serve as the propaganda minister of the Islamic world to our nation's children. So who does he blame? You guessed it: the Jews.Unbelievable aspect: The NYT was silent about the controversial pick of Charles Freeman until he withdrew his nomination; the paper repinted his diatribe against the Israel "lobby"
. For two plus weeks this story has been percolating. The Times has remained completely uninterested. The paper did not reprint any of the myriad problems with the nomination. Or any of the statements Freeman has made over the years. Nor his ties to the Chinese and Saudi governments. Nor his efforts to spread propaganda to our children. Only now, when he withdraws his nomination does the paper choose to find something worthy of print: his accusations that the “Israel Lobby” led to his being compelled to pull his nomination. The paper has had two weeks to report on the many problems with Freeman’s record-which they give very short shrift to in today’s article.
The Times seems to find that diatribe “fit to print”.
Freeman (at this to his greatest hits collection):
I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government - in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.
Well that should be worth a hefty bonus from the Saudis.The question remains: why would Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, choose a mentally ill man to fill one of the more important positions in the national security firmament? Blair and Freeman have been friends for years. Does anyone think that Blair himself did not hear these types of sentiments from Freeman over the years?
What does that say about Blair?
One would never know from the article that Freeman ascribed his withdrawal to "unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country," to "a special interest group," to "a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired," to "the Israel Lobby," to "a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government - in this case, the government of Israel," or to any of the other variations Freeman worked into his statement.
Pincus's article does reveal that one of Freeman's congressional critics is named Israel. I'm sure that makes Freeman happy. Pincus's article does not report on any of the opposition to his appointment by Chinese human rights activists and sympathizers (including my old teacher Jonathan Mirsky), or the reasons for their opposition. I'm sure that makes Freeman happy too.
Mark Steyn, too, notices that Pincus is covering up the full extent of the madness:
Poor old Freeman. He has the guts to spill the beans on the Israel Lobby, and either their stooge Pincus or the sinister cosmopolitan Jews who control America's Union of Newspaper Delivery Boys hoover any reference to the dark truth out of the paper before it reaches your doorstop.
At least I hope that's the case. The alternative explanation is that The Washington Post would rather protect anyone even peripherally associated with President Obama than risk giving its readers any "news".